Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

But this is a myth of the innocentisti. Vecchiotti and Conti are not "independent" experts, they are judge appointed experts. Only the judge is independent. The judge is supposed to be neutral but only until he judges. After he judges he takes a side, from that moment he is considering biased. But Hellmann Zanetti not only have taken a side, they have also been completely discredited. The SC destroyed them completely, challenged Vecchiotti's "intellectual honesty" and basically pointed her making up document content, and all of Hellmann's trial conduct and decisions were annulled (except part of the calunnia finding). Then we had also external source claiming that the defence was having contacts with Vecchiotti and Conti before the publishing of their report (through experts Hampikiam and Budowle). Btw Vecchiotti has a dubious reputation herself also due to other cases.
How can this expert be anyhow considers "neutral"? This is really unduly naive.

The appointee of the independent judge is independent also. This is a simple axiom.

 

[Bill Williams]

But this is a myth of the innocentisti. Vecchiotti and Conti are not "independent" experts, they are judge appointed experts. Only the judge is independent. The judge is supposed to be neutral but only until he judges. After he judges he takes a side, from that moment he is considering biased. But Hellmann Zanetti not only have taken a side, they have also been completely discredited. The SC destroyed them completely, challenged Vecchiotti's "intellectual honesty" and basically pointed her making up document content, and all of Hellmann's trial conduct and decisions were annulled (except part of the calunnia finding). Then we had also external source claiming that the defence was having contacts with Vecchiotti and Conti before the publishing of their report (through experts Hampikiam and Budowle). Btw Vecchiotti has a dubious reputation herself also due to other cases.
How can this expert be anyhow considers "neutral"? This is really unduly naive.

You have tried to make this point repeatedly. What you have no address is if you believe Wladimiro De Nunzio to similarly be a criminal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

arguments about DNA debunked

So you think it's enough to have a video, while it's unnecessary to know anything about documentation and questionings in order to explain how Sollecito's DNA happened to travel on the metal hook and stick there as well as how Meredith's DNA managed to make it to Sollecito's kitchen knife, and show how this event is probable. I guess it would be worthless if I asked Gill where he could see Sollecoto's DNA in the video, or on how many spots on the floor he is aware such DNA was found (without having read the documentation) or how did he found out that the knife transportation box was "connected to Meredith Kercher" always from the video of course.
You write a lot of quotes, but in your thousands lines you are unable to point at a single realistic scenario for how the DNA of Sollecito happened to travel on the bra clasp or how Meredith's DNA could stick in a groove in Sollecito's kitchen knife. The only thing any expert needs to do to have a judge listen, is to explain how these contamination occurred and show what source and what event made them be probable. Even a little kid understands you are unable to do so, and Prof. Gill is unable to offer an explanation as well.
I remind you that you spectacularly violated your axiom #1, by assuming that the presence of some DNA material in a finding should be taken as an indication of the timing of when the deposit of the whole material occurred.
Last point: one doesn't need to be a genius in order to infer that if an expert refers to Vecchiotti as his source and presents his work as manifestly related to Vecchiotti, it would make no sense to consider such expert "neutral" and unrelated to any side.

There is no reason to believe that Meredith's DNA was ever on the knife. In addition, the fact that it was handled by someone who had been at the cottage means that even if her DNA were on the knife, there would be an innocent explanation for it (one of at least two, that I can think of). And there was no justification for repackaging the knife, no matter who did it. The existence of aerosol DNA is understood everywhere but within ILE, and that is one reason why laboratory contamination is another highly likely scenario. The lack of blood on the knife is yet one more problem for the prosecution's idiotic theory of the crime to overcome, as Dr. Gill also discusses. With respect to the alleged groove, there is nothing that would protect biological matter from the action of detergent or any other cleaning fluid. The cells would lyse under osmotic shock, and the contents would be washed away or destroyed.

With respect to axiom #1, I must infer that we are talking about the clasp. Unless one is willing to buy into a scenario in which at least two and perhaps as many as four men besides Sollecito were part of the crime, then the clasp must have DNA from innocent transfer, before or after the crime. It simply has to be one or the other. Althought DNA itself does not tell us when or how it came to be on an item, this does not mean that other evidence cannot be used to draw an inference.

Maybe you can explain how the clasp came to be damaged to the point of worthlessness for retesting. While you are at it, perhaps you can explain why anyone would be foolish enough to take seriously any claim whatsoever made by a lab that destroys evidence.

With respect to the point about Dr. Vecchiotti, may I remind you that she was the source of the egrams that Dr. Balding used? Therefore, if anyone took your ideas seriously, they would have to toss his analysis by the same token.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, done that

I struggle with the discussion outside the court process vs what has become available via the internet in YouTube clips etc. For me it comes down to what was raised in the original trial and Florence appeal, do you recall if either defence teams raise these issues in court?

Yes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leskie Jama Turner Anderson

I think the case is way past this and I have forgotten how many times this has been raised. However, I can understand in an Italian court that it is not enough for defence lawyers to throw their hands up in the air shouting “contamination”; that they need to provide an explanation to the court of how contamination occurred. As I recall in the OJ Simpson trial they were able to cast doubt of Mr Fung’s (testimony), I don’t recall either defence team doing this, well not effectively.

CoulsdonUK,

Many explanations have been provided. With respect to the knife, airborne DNA in the laboratory is one of them, and Officer Gubbiotti is another. With respect to the bra clasp, Sollecito's DNA must have been on the door (his fingerprints were there, and fingerprints contain DNA). From door to glove to clasp is one plausible route. The towels that Guede brought into Meredith's room are another. I am not sure how many times these things have been said.

More importantly, you are skirting around the main issue, which is that even in cases where contamination is generally accepted (Leskie, Jama, Turner, Anderson), the exact route of contamination is not known (I would like to be able to include Gary Leiterman on this list, because anyone with half a brain can figure out that this, too, was contamination). Of approximately equal importance is that by the SCC's arguments, the FP do not have to follow good practice in evidence collection. The onus has now shifted onto the defense to show that some particular example of bad practice caused the contamination, and the defense is further hampered by failure of the prosecution to disclose the evidence in a way that is routine in other countries. Does this make a lick of sense to you? Do you think that Dr. Gill was correct to say that the prosecution must acknowledge alternate possibilities of DNA transfer?

I have no idea why you are even bringing up the Simpson case. His defense team argued evidence tampering, along with contamination (Butler, Forensic DNA typing, 2nd ed., p. 37). DNA typing methodology was different in 1994 than it is now. To the best of my knowledge, not all of the work was even done using PCR-based methodology, let alone at the low template level. As the size of the sample decreases, the possibility of some sort of transfer unrelated to the crime increases. It is tempting to say that bringing up the Simpson case is a pointless distraction, but I won't say it.

 

[js202]

The appointee of the independent judge is independent also. This is a simple axiom.

I must say I'm more a fan of your axioms, Samson, than I am of some others' in this thread.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's the job of the prosecution to produce evidence that is certain. Evidence that has been handled in a way that makes contamination as close to impossible as possible. The safeguards in the labs such as cleaning protocol and positive pressure hoods are required. They are required precisely to eliminate the possibility of contamination in vast, vast majority of tests.

If the safeguards were not present, it would be very difficul to show probable contamination often - if that were not true the more stringent protocols wouldn't be necessary.

But this is just false. And this is not a jury based adversarial system in which the evidence can be preemptively selected by a judge. The duty of the prosecution is not at all to bring findings that have an absolute certain or certified meaning, it is instead to just bring facts that are meaningful on a probabilistic level. You can well reach a certain conclusion without any "smoking gun" and with not a single element that is absolutely certain. There is no need of absolute certainty thresholds or certifications whatsoever for evidence in a trial.

Well I for one thing the box was handled by cops that were in the cottage IIRC. I could get a cite but no one would care

But you can't be serious calling tho a "connection with MK". Tertiary transfer from having breathed the air inside a house (not the room). What are the records in science of a transfer under these condition? What are the odds? It' ridiculous. You could start talking of probability approaching the area of reasonable probability if Gubbiotti was wearing a jacket completely splashed with Meredith's blood. Btw Gubbiotti did not leave his alleged contaminating MK's DNA on any other item he handled from Sollecito's apartment; actually not even his own DNA is found on the knife, nor that of other forensics, not even on any other item collects in Sollecito's apartment.

Raf's DNA was on the door, someone in the 6 weeks between CSI visits got his DNA from door and then touched the bra clasp as they moved thing around in MK's room. MK's DNA wasn't on the knife at all but if it had been one source would from the lab itself. It could be secondary transfer from Amanda to the knife. The cop in the station could have picked up some MK DNA and then transferred to the box.

But, first you don't even have evidence of RS's DNA on the door, in what amount was it there? Did Sollecito lick extensively the surface? There is no evidence of a source of any massive or anyway statistically significant size.
Then, who would this "someone" be? Did anyone pick up the clasp? How did Sollecito's DNA from a dry trace stick on the metal? And nowhere else? What are the odds for this transfer? Whereas the operator did not manage to leave not even his own profile on any item, not even on the floor?
And the knife, with 6 days of interval during which 105 samples were analyzed by the same machine and no MK trace found (this is the Novelli report)?
Amanda's secondary transfer, an isolated trace on a blade? Why not on the handle then? Why not on the things Knox touched most frequently? And after all, why should Knox come into contact with a large source of Meredith's DNA? And even if that was the case, would any better forensic technique change anything to this matter?

There are a plethora of ways it could have ended up there with the slack behavior of Stefanoni. Are you related to her?

Has any non-police associated or non Italian expert backed the work of Steffy.

And has any non "defense-siding" expert found anything to the contrary? Any non Vecchiotti- related expert?

Actually I find your demand utterly nonsense. Any expert in a trial is expected to take a side. It makes no sense to think about a "non-related" experts. An expert will necessarily come into contact with a trial through some party involved and will happend to be on some side. When you approach the trial material for real, when you actualy get involved and deal seriously with the matter, being on a side is just unavoidable, this is always when it comes to do serious job.
So, I ask myself: what would I do if I were a DNA scientist (like Gill) who just happens to think the two accused are probably guilty, and that the forensic evidence was probably good, but I was not involved in the case and never had direct knowledge of the trial matter. Would I stand up, publicly defending Stefanoni, take a public position?
You forget it. I would remain silent, take care about my job and not spout judgement about others' job in which I was not involved. I would never issue publications carrying judgments and conclusions about a case where I was not working. It's just not serious. It's not scientific.
I know about Balding and also about another big name who were making statements expressing agreement with the validity of Stefanoni's interpretation and conclusions. But they keep themselves out from the public discourse, or made clear they were outsiders that could perform only limited observations; and rightly so. Being serious means speak about things you deal seriously with, do that in serious venues and terms. Not write conclusions about things you didn't investigate directly.
A "non-involved" expert, someone not siding and not speaking within the trial, who does not even hapen deal with that particular system, who publicly "backs" sides through judgments and conclusions, is not doing something serious. A serious unrelated expert "sticking his nose" (publicly backing etc.) into works where he was not seriously involved, is an oxymoron.

C&V compiled the available data. Would you suggest he used the defense experts files or...?

I will not spend time talking about V's manipulation and cheating with data.

 

[js202]

I will not spend time talking about V's manipulation and cheating with data.

You will not, quite simply, because it would take you no time to do so. Because, unlike Stefanoni, Vecchiotti is an authentic scientist with peer-reviewed papers to her credit, and in possession of methods, practices and ethics which are recognizable to the scientific community.

We have seen what PGP homunculuses and fools like Ergon do when they encounter accredited scientists who understand that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. It is like a gnat going after an elephant with a pair of tweezers.

 

[Skind]

You will not, quite simply, because it would take you no time to do so. Because, unlike Stefanoni, Vecchiotti is an authentic scientist with peer-reviewed papers to her credit, and in possession of methods, practices and ethics which are recognizable to the scientific community.

We have seen what PGP homunculuses and fools like Ergon do when they encounter accredited scientists who understand that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. It is like a gnat going after an elephant with a pair of tweezers.

Oh, don't be fooled. Mach will spend a lot of time talking about "V's cheating and manipulation of data", he/she/they just won't spend any time trying to prove any of it.

The last time they did that, it was trivial to point to V's actual answers about what V had actually done and how this vastly departed from the prosecutions foolish mish-mash misrepresentation and lying-by-omission. Needless to say, actual reality as indicated by V's testimony bears no resemblance to the fiction depicted by Mach. Mach simply had no evidence that V's answers were factually wrong, so he/she/they simply assumed V was lying and therefore her answers were a lie.

 

[MichaelB]

Who will stop the tanks?

http://gmancasefile.com/1/post/2014/08/who-will-stop-the-tanks.html

 

[Machiavelli]

You will not, quite simply, because it would take you no time to do so. Because, unlike Stefanoni, Vecchiotti is an authentic scientist with peer-reviewed papers to her credit, and in possession of methods, practices and ethics which are recognizable to the scientific community.

We have seen what PGP homunculuses and fools like Ergon do when they encounter accredited scientists who understand that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. It is like a gnat going after an elephant with a pair of tweezers.

Vecchiotti's report quote from court documents that she is asked about, she says she never heard about this content before. Just to da one. Btw Stefanoni has authored the best read publication in her field in recent year. Vecchiotti is known for having performed "the worse forensic analysis in Italian history" on the notorious Olgiata case, she fell under suspicion for the Ghira case and took part with her friend Albarello in swapping Cucchi's broken vertebra with an intact one (so to favor defence of the accused). Her co- worker on main cases, Pascali, is even under trial for expert fraud.
Stefano I is a member of ENFSI and has two ISO certifications while Vecchiotti doesn't even have a temperature log in her empty refrigerator, actually does not even have a thermometer, amf does not protect the samples which she refuses to analyze (violating court ordnances).

 

[LondonJohn]

Machiavelli seems unable (or unwilling) to understand the critical difference between a) being a partisan advocate of one "side" or the other, and b) coming to an objective conclusion that turns out to be favourable to one "side" or the other.

He also exposes once again a serious structural flaw in the Italian system as it stands today: the laughably improper and unjust disclosure system. Basically, it appears that the courts trust the prosecutors and police to decide unilaterally what is and is not "relevant" evidence. Again, I feel certain that this harks back to the old inquisitorial system, where prosecutors were deemed to be impartial, disinterested public servants whose only goal was the "truth". Under those rules, the theory (though almost certainly not the practice) was that prosecutors would give fair assessment to all sides and were themselves a neutral party in the proceedings.

In fact, the above is perhaps the biggest reason why the inquisitorial system is fundamentally unfit for purpose. Prosecutors - even in inquisitorial systems - exist in order to gain convictions. Even a fool can see that there's an enormous potential for inbuilt bias towards finding a defendant guilty. Of course, under an adversarial system this is now a naked fact: the prosecutor makes the case for guilt, and the defence makes the case for non-guilt. And therefore, for the prosecutor to have the power to decide what is and is not relevant evidence is self-evidently ridiculous and unjust. Again, even a fool can see that unscrupulous prosecutors (mentioning no names.....) may have a vested interest in concealing exculpatory or "anti-prosecution" evidence from the defence and the courts.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the by, I wonder why the irony never occurs to all those who denounce Hellmann and his court as useless and/or corrupt that this in itself - were it true - is an extremely serious criticism of the Italian criminal justice system. Assuming for one moment that Hellmann and his court were utterly incompetent and/or corrupt, what can that tell us about the competence and fitness for purpose of the justice system, not only in this trial process in particular, but in Italy in general?

How could that have happened? How could such an incompetent (and corrupt?) judge have been appointed? Doesn't that imply that those who appointed him were also incompetent and/or corrupt? And what about those about them? I find it mildly amusing (to say the least) that the pro-guilt commentators making these accusations about Hellmann's court cannot see the classic double-bind contradiction in which they find themselves........

 

[Samson]

By the by, I wonder why the irony never occurs to all those who denounce Hellmann and his court as useless and/or corrupt that this in itself - were it true - is an extremely serious criticism of the Italian criminal justice system. Assuming for one moment that Hellmann and his court were utterly incompetent and/or corrupt, what can that tell us about the competence and fitness for purpose of the justice system, not only in this trial process in particular, but in Italy in general?

How could that have happened? How could such an incompetent (and corrupt?) judge have been appointed? Doesn't that imply that those who appointed him were also incompetent and/or corrupt? And what about those about them? I find it mildly amusing (to say the least) that the pro-guilt commentators making these accusations about Hellmann's court cannot see the classic double-bind contradiction in which they find themselves........

This is tantamount to asking the Italian judiciary if they have stopped beating their wife. Over to you Machiavelli.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is tantamount to asking the Italian judiciary if they have stopped beating their wife. Over to you Machiavelli.

It's also a little like Sollecito's nuanced appeal argument: he states that he was with Knox all evening/night, but if the court decides to believe that Knox was out on her own, then this in itself tends to support a claim for his non-participation.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that so many pro-guilt commentators can't (or won't) understand such nuances.

 

[Dan O.]

Btw Gubbiotti did not leave his alleged contaminating MK's DNA on any other item he handled from Sollecito's apartment; actually not even his own DNA is found on the knife, nor that of other forensics, not even on any other item collects in Sollecito's apartment.

Where does Machiavelli pull this statement out of? Has he reviewed the EDF's? Has he reanalized every item taken from Raffaele's apartment looking for any trace of DNA even after the machine is telling him "TOO LOW”? Does he even have Gubbiotti's reference profile to exclude as the source of the unknown male profiles found in Raffaele's apartment? No. This is yet another unfounded lie manufactured by Machiavelli or his handlers.

 

[platonov]

OMG They got Kenny.

By the by, I wonder why the irony never occurs to all those who denounce Hellmann and his court as useless and/or corrupt that this in itself - were it true - is an extremely serious criticism of the Italian criminal justice system. Assuming for one moment that Hellmann and his court were utterly incompetent and/or corrupt, what can that tell us about the competence and fitness for purpose of the justice system, not only in this trial process in particular, but in Italy in general?

How could that have happened? How could such an incompetent (and corrupt?) judge have been appointed? Doesn't that imply that those who appointed him were also incompetent and/or corrupt? And what about those about them? I find it mildly amusing (to say the least) that the pro-guilt commentators making these accusations about Hellmann's court cannot see the classic double-bind contradiction in which they find themselves........

Wow, thats a pretty dumb argument even by your standards LJ.

Let me try to explain by way of analogy. You often utilize this approach, the difference here is that mine will be appropriate and may help clear up this confusion.

In the mid 80's in London a well known South London face (gangster) was acquitted of the murder of an on-duty cop. Said cop was killed during an investigation into the disposal of the bullion from the famous Brinks Mat heist by said gangster.
It was long suspected that the gangster had got to the jury – what seems indisputable was that said gangster had corrupt cops on his payroll. [See S Lawrence case]

Fast forward a few years .. The Met [London cops] went to some lengths to return from Spain the gangster for his role in what became known as the M25 road rage murder. He was successfully prosecuted and jailed.

Now by your logic because he earlier avoided justice his later conviction is unsafe and the whole UK judicial system is compromised.

Spectacular even by your standards.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli seems unable (or unwilling) to understand the critical difference between a) being a partisan advocate of one "side" or the other, and b) coming to an objective conclusion that turns out to be favourable to one "side" or the other.

He also exposes once again a serious structural flaw in the Italian system as it stands today: the laughably improper and unjust disclosure system. Basically, it appears that the courts trust the prosecutors and police to decide unilaterally what is and is not "relevant" evidence. Again, I feel certain that this harks back to the old inquisitorial system, where prosecutors were deemed to be impartial, disinterested public servants whose only goal was the "truth". Under those rules, the theory (though almost certainly not the practice) was that prosecutors would give fair assessment to all sides and were themselves a neutral party in the proceedings.

In fact, the above is perhaps the biggest reason why the inquisitorial system is fundamentally unfit for purpose. Prosecutors - even in inquisitorial systems - exist in order to gain convictions. Even a fool can see that there's an enormous potential for inbuilt bias towards finding a defendant guilty. Of course, under an adversarial system this is now a naked fact: the prosecutor makes the case for guilt, and the defence makes the case for non-guilt. And therefore, for the prosecutor to have the power to decide what is and is not relevant evidence is self-evidently ridiculous and unjust. Again, even a fool can see that unscrupulous prosecutors (mentioning no names.....) may have a vested interest in concealing exculpatory or "anti-prosecution" evidence from the defence and the courts.

So LJ, would YOU ask Machiavelli if De Nunzio is also a criminal? Mach has said that De Numzio was the one in the Perugian court system who through "Machiavelian" means manipulated the system so that Hellmann would be appointed.

It seems the one thing we can agree on, the corrupt behind the scenes stuff.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow, thats a pretty dumb argument even by your standards LJ.

Let me try to explain by way of analogy. You often utilize this approach, the difference here is that mine will be appropriate and may help clear up this confusion.

In the mid 80's in London a well known South London face (gangster) was acquitted of the murder of an on-duty cop. Said cop was killed during an investigation into the disposal of the bullion from the famous Brinks Mat heist by said gangster.
It was long suspected that the gangster had got to the jury – what seems indisputable was that said gangster had corrupt cops on his payroll. [See S Lawrence case]

Fast forward a few years .. The Met [London cops] went to some lengths to return from Spain the gangster for his role in what became known as the M25 road rage murder. He was successfully prosecuted and jailed.

Now by your logic because he earlier avoided justice his later conviction is unsafe and the whole UK judicial system is compromised.

Spectacular even by your standards.

Huh? The Noye case is in no way remotely analogous.

I'll try to explain more slowly why there's irony and contradiction in the Knox/Sollecito trial situation: if Hellmann's court was so utterly illegitimate and incompetent (and possibly, according to some, corrupt!), then how could Hellmann possibly have been appointed to the case in the first place? Either his superiors did not know he was incompetent - in which case his superiors are also incompetent for not knowing the incompetence of a judge whom they were appointing to a high-profile major murder appeal trial. Or his superiors were themselves corrupt - which implies corruption at the heart of the Italian judiciary.

In Noye's case, there were quite possibly corrupt police officers (now where else have I come across that not-so-uncommon phenomenon......?), but the police are not the judiciary. Are you suggesting that the court itself in Noye's first trial (when he was acquitted of the murder of the undercover officer) was incompetent or corrupt? Because if you are, then that's a whole different ball game. And once Noye was identified as the owner and driver of the Range Rover involved in the road range killing, the police had no choice but to pursue him. Besides which, the murder squad leading the hunt for Noye were a totally separate set of individuals from the Flying Squad (or similar) officers who were possibly corrupted by Noye regarding the Brinks Mat robbery.


I suggest either more appropriate analogies, or perhaps not attempting to use them at all

 

[Diocletus]

Vecchiotti's report quote from court documents that she is asked about, she says she never heard about this content before. Just to da one. Btw Stefanoni has authored the best read publication in her field in recent year.

What exactly is her field? Document hiding?